Earn CE Credits!

Conners CATA®

Conners Continuous Auditory Test of Attention®

The Most Representative CPT Normative Samples Collected

The normative sample consists of 1,080 cases and is representative of the United States (U.S.) population in terms of key demographic variables such as gender, race, geographical region, and parental education level.

Reliability

Users can be confident that the Conners CATA will yield consistent and stable scores across administrations.

Internal Consistency

One measure of a test’s internal consistency is split-half reliability, which has been previously used to establish the reliability of other continuous performance tests. Split-half reliability estimates of the Conners CATA scales were calculated for the normative and clinical samples. Results were very strong – across all scores, the median split-half reliability estimate was .95 for the norm and clinical samples (all correlations were significant, p < .001). These results indicate that the Conners CATA demonstrates excellent internal consistency for both the normative and the clinical groups.

Test-Retest Reliability

Test-retest reliability refers to the consistency of scores obtained from the same respondent on separate occasions over a specified period of time. To estimate the test-retest reliability of the Conners CATA, a sample of 69 respondents from the general population completed the Conners CATA twice with a 1- to 4-week interval between administrations. The median test-retest correlation was .64. These results suggest a good level of test-retest reliability.

Validity

Users can be assured that the Conners CATA will help detect attention deficits and differentiate Clinical from Non-Clinical Cases.

Discriminative Validity

Discriminative validity pertains to an instrument’s ability to distinguish between relevant participant groups (i.e., the test’s ability to differentiate between clinical and non-clinical groups). In order to conduct discriminative validity analyses, Conners CATA data were collected during the standardization process from 193 children and adults who had an existing ADHD diagnosis. Conners CATA scores from this ADHD sample were compared to a matched sample from the general population. Results indicated that differences were found between the ADHD sample and the matched general population sample on most measures with small to moderate effect sizes (d = 0.10 to 0.63). As expected, the ADHD sample demonstrated poorer performance (i.e., they had higher scores on the Conners CATA). In particular, the ADHD sample had lower d′ scores, indicating that they had more difficulty in distinguishing between target trials and non-target trials than did the general population sample. Similarly, the ADHD sample made a greater number of errors (i.e., they had higher percentages Commissions and Perseverative Commissions than did the general population sample) and showed more variability in their responses (i.e., higher HRT SD scores, when compared to the matched general population sample).

Incremental Validity

Another approach in establishing the Conners CATA’s validity is to show how it works together with other measures of similar constructs in the assessment of attention problems. To assess such validity, samples were collected in which cases were scored on the Conners CATA and other measures of attention. Specifically, in a sample of 112 youth, parent-reports on the Conners 3rd Edition (Conners 3-P) were collected in addition to their scores on the Conners CATA and the Conners CPT 3. Logistic regressions were conducted in order to determine how well scales from the Conners CATA improve the diagnostic efficacy of the Conners 3-P and Conners CPT 3 in predicting group membership into ADHD or general population groups. Results are presented in the table below. When the Conners 3-P, Conners CPT 3, and Conners CATA scores were considered together, there was an overall correct classification rate (i.e., the ability to accurately predict group membership) of 93.8%, sensitivity (i.e., the ability to correctly detect ADHD cases) of 94.7%, and specificity (i.e., the ability to correctly detect general population cases) of 92.7%. These values were 9.9%, 8.7%, and 10.9%, respectively, higher than when the rating scale was used on its own. Furthermore, the Conners CATA added increased classification accuracy over and above the Conners 3-P and Conners CPT 3.

Dr. C. Keith Conners has had an extraordinary and diverse career as an academic, clinician, researcher, lecturer, author, editor-in-chief, and administrator. His dedication to the study of ADHD and other childhood problems propelled him to the forefront of his field. His intense interest has led him to write several books, journal articles, and book chapters based on his research on ADHD and childhood disorders. He is highly recognized in the field of psychology for his numerous contributions

During the course of his career, Dr. Conners was greatly intrigued by children exhibiting a diverse pattern of symptoms. He collected data on children from the general population and children with an existing symptom list who were referred to clinics, and eventually published the first version of the Conners’ Parent Rating Scale. The increasing use and popularity of the rating scales eventually made his original articles among the most cited in the literature on the subject.

Dr. Conners is now retired and is currently residing in North Carolina. He continues to lecture, present workshops on diagnosis and assessment, and serve as a consultant to numerous government and private organizations.

The Conners 3rd Edition™ (Conners 3™) and the Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales™ (Conners CBRS™) represent Dr. Conners’ life-long commitment to integrating the latest in academic research with contemporary clinical practice. Back to the top